Prokofiev PC #2 cadenza with Bolet

[Russ (not Martha)]

Back in 1959 I wrote my Masters Thesis on the subject of Prokofiev's
Piano Concertos (with just some boilerplate regarding the Left-Hand
Concerto which was not yet available). I picked the subject since I
already knew the music and didn't want to spend time doing scholarly
research when I could have been drinking beer.

A few weeks ago, in the original thread regarding Prokofiev's PF
Concerto #2, the subject of Jorge Bolet's cut in the 1st movt cadenza
came up.

Bolet cuts 10 bars.

Russ (not Martha)

[Gerard]

As it is a cadenza, isn't everyone free to cut like (s)he wants?

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 10:48 am, "Russ (not Martha)" <roppenh...@satx.rr.com>
wrote:

> Bolet cuts 10 bars.

Was that a composer-sanctioned cut a la some of Rachmaninoff's cuts in
his concerti ? Thanks.

Dufus

[pianomaven]

Doesn't matter.

It's a cadenza.

TD

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 1:00 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doesn't matter.
>
> It's a cadenza.
>

Yeah, right, Prokofieff probably didn't give a damn how, or what
part , was played, just wrote one of the most taxing cadenzas in the
literature anyway. I may be in error, which is why I asked about the
history, but your "just" a cadenza explanation seems to fall short.

Dufus

[Gerard]

Not in case of a cadenza.

[CharlesSmith]

On Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:59:31 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> Dufus wrote:

> > On Sep 24, 1:00 pm, pianomaven <1pian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > It's a cadenza.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, right, Prokofieff probably didn't give a damn how, or what
> > part , was played, just wrote one of the most taxing cadenzas in the
> > literature anyway. I may be in error, which is why I asked about the
> > history, but your "just" a cadenza explanation seems to fall short.
> >
> > Dufus
>
> Not in case of a cadenza.

Prokofiev invested enormous efferts in this 'cadenza'. He wrote and rewrote it for the first version - getting Stravinsky's advice and then later ignoring it. He rewrote it again for the second version. It's an absolutely essential component of the composition - just because it's an extended section for solo piano doesn't make it less so. Saying it's a cadenza so you can chop it is nonsense. Either the pianist is playing this concenrto or he/she isn't.

Charles

[Gerard]

You say 'cadenza'.
It looks like it is not a real cadenza, but a composed part for piano solo.

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Can anyone tell me which bars Bolet deleted?

Henk

[JohnGavin]

Yes, and why would anyone want to cut this particular cadenza - it's
so effective and well written.

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, "Gerard" <ghen-nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> You say 'cadenza'.
> It looks like it is not a real cadenza, but a composed part for piano solo.

As are most cadenzas in most piano concerti after Beethoven, all the
more reason not to cut unless sanctioned.

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 2:35 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:

>
> Can anyone tell me which bars Bolet deleted?
>

No , I have no score, but perhaps Russ can dig out his thesis and
advise.

I do hear a cut in the 1st mov. cadenza starting at 8:45-8:46 of the
YT copy of the Remington recording:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n89wSS3YpdI

Have a listen,tell me what you think. I'll be glad to stand corrected,
as I said often before.

Dufus

[Gerard]

Not for cadenzas.

[Kip Williams]

Okay, I went and looked at my Kalmus two-piano score with the 1954
YouTube performance of Bolet in the first movement, and he cuts 164
through 173. In other words, he jumps from 163 to 174.

I don't know why he did it, but I imprinted on his version, and when I
heard a longer performance of the cadenza, it was just like getting ten
brand-new bars of Prokofieff for free. (On the other hand, when I first
heard the Tchaikovsky — played by Heifetz, I think — without cuts
[Ricci's version, which I imprinted on], my feeling was more like, "Aw,
c'mon, get to the point already!)


Kip W

[CharlesSmith]

On Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:29:50 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> CharlesSmith wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:59:31 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> > > Dufus wrote:

> > > > On Sep 24, 1:00 pm, pianomaven <1pia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Doesn't matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a cadenza.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, right, Prokofieff probably didn't give a damn how, or what
> > > > part , was played, just wrote one of the most taxing cadenzas in
> > > > the literature anyway. I may be in error, which is why I asked
> > > > about the history, but your "just" a cadenza explanation seems to
> > > > fall short.
> > > >
> > > > Dufus
> > >
> > > Not in case of a cadenza.
> >
> > Prokofiev invested enormous efferts in this 'cadenza'. He wrote and
> > rewrote it for the first version - getting Stravinsky's advice and
> > then later ignoring it. He rewrote it again for the second version.
> > It's an absolutely essential component of the composition - just
> > because it's an extended section for solo piano doesn't make it less
> > so. Saying it's a cadenza so you can chop it is nonsense. Either the
> > pianist is playing this concenrto or he/she isn't.
> >
> > Charles
>
> You say 'cadenza'.
> It looks like it is not a real cadenza, but a composed part for piano solo.

As far as I'm concerned:
"composed part for piano solo" = composer writes the notes, pianist plays them
"cadenza" = a cadence with a flourish (almighty one in this case)
So it's not either/or. It's both.

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Kip Williams wrote:
> Okay, I went and looked at my Kalmus two-piano score with the 1954
> YouTube performance of Bolet in the first movement, and he cuts 164
> through 173. In other words, he jumps from 163 to 174.
> I don't know why he did it, but I imprinted on his version, and when I
> heard a longer performance of the cadenza, it was just like getting
> ten brand-new bars of Prokofieff for free.

I cannot see why he skipped these 10 bars. It certainly isn't the most
difficult part of the cadenza. Perhaps he believed it to be the least
captivating part (which it is, in a way).

Henk

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 5:27 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I cannot see why he skipped these 10 bars. It certainly isn't the most
> difficult part of the cadenza. Perhaps he believed it to be the least
> captivating part (which it is, in a way).

I disagree . Those 10 add a transcendent quality , a majesty, an
intensifying, elevating emotion, the work deserves/needs at that
point. Hardly, "aw,c'mon". What would Prokofiev say ; that those 10
were mere surplusage ? Perhaps more difficult than sounds ?

In any event, the movement/cadenza is poorer without those 10.

Glad to hear my ears still work.

Dufus

[pianomaven]

The unfortunate thing is that Bolet is not here to defend himself.

He might just say that he didn't LIKE those 10 bars.

What are you going to do? Take him to court?

Prokofiev is dead anyway.

TD

[pianomaven]

Right on.

The full Tchaikovsky has FAR too much repetitive nonsense in it.
Heifetz had the right idea. Just cut them out.

TD

[pianomaven]

But your taste doesn't.

TD

[herman]

It's a no-brainer. No one is taking Bolet to court for skipping ten
bars of the cadenza. He's dead anyway. ("You can't shoot a dead
person," as Seinfeld sagely observed. "You can't overdie.")

But it does show one more reason to prefer more recent interpretations
of this huge piece. Why just cut ten bars of a masterpiece? As a
matter of taste? Taste has no place in major art. You don't take a
knife to a Picasso or Rembrandt either, because black is not your
favorite color. The way I hear it Prokofiev interpretation has much
expanded anyway since the end of the Cold War. Recordings like
Guttierez (sp?) with Järvi and Toradze with Gergiev, or Krainev with
Kitaenko, just to name three, are made by musicians who are much more
familiar with the entirety of Prokofiev's work, and I think you can
hear the difference, even if you have "imprinted" on these very early
recordings, as some of you clearly are.

[Kip Williams]

Since I was unclear above, I'll try and clarify. Ricci, my imprint
version, made a number of cuts.


Kip W

[Russ (not Martha)]

On Sep 24, 2:49 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:35 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me which bars Bolet deleted?
>
> No , I have no score, but perhaps Russ can dig out his thesis and
> advise.
>

Sorry, my thesis is in the Netherlands,. I had to email my daughter
and ask her to dig it out and remind me how many bars I said Bolet
deleted.

Now I could dub the LP into a WAV file, burn it onto a CD, shlep the
CD and my Sony portable down to a nearby university, pull the 2-piano
score, listen to the extended solo in question (calling it a cadenza
seems to have set off an unprofitable debate),and determine precisely
which bars were omitted, but someone would have to send me a generous
check.

Russ (not Martha)

[Gerard]

herman wrote:
> It's a no-brainer. No one is taking Bolet to court for skipping ten
> bars of the cadenza. He's dead anyway. ("You can't shoot a dead
> person," as Seinfeld sagely observed. "You can't overdie.")
>
> But it does show one more reason to prefer more recent interpretations
> of this huge piece. Why just cut ten bars of a masterpiece? As a
> matter of taste? Taste has no place in major art. You don't take a
> knife to a Picasso or Rembrandt either, because black is not your
> favorite color.

Bad analogy (although it is used very frequently).
Nobody performs Picasso or Rembrandt at concerts.

> The way I hear it Prokofiev interpretation has much
> expanded anyway since the end of the Cold War. Recordings like

> Guttierez (sp?) with J�rvi and Toradze with Gergiev, or Krainev with

[herman]

On 25 sep, 10:15, "Gerard" <ghen-nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> herman wrote:

>
> > But it does show one more reason to prefer more recent interpretations
> > of this huge piece. Why just cut ten bars of a masterpiece? As a
> > matter of taste? Taste has no place in major art. You don't take a
> > knife to a Picasso or Rembrandt either, because black is not your
> > favorite color.
>
> Bad analogy (although it is used very frequently).
> Nobody performs Picasso or Rembrandt at concerts.
>

Really? I hadn't thought of that.

That's why there's no need to take Bolet to court for making a cut in
the score. You can just get another score / performer.

However, it is a little puzzling if people say they actually prefer
the bowlderized version, just beause they imprinted on it. 'I heard
that one first' is not a very persuasive argument.

[Gerard]

That's right. Many people get "imprinted" on one recording (re many pieces).
That's always that same recording, which is only one example of how a piece can
be performed. Listening to other recordings and performances can help to
"overwin" imprinting on only one recording.
OTOH in many cases some special memories and emotions are attached to such an
imprinted recording. Those recordings will always have a special place in
preferences of individuals. But this cannot be used as an argument, because it
is very private preference (in a lot of cases).

[pianomaven]

First question:

Is it a MASTERPIECE?

It is a "huge piece", as is Rach 3. But I am not sure that is a
masterpiece either, Herman.

The other readings you mention are all good, particularly Toradze, by
the way.

But nobody, as far as I know, has captured the dark murky sinister
quality of this piece in quite the way Bolet did in that rather badly
recorded version for Remington some 60 years ago now. I am wondering,
indeed, whether that was not the very first recording ever made of
this concerto. WERM might take us up to 1953, perhaps. I am unusure of
any others which were made prior to Bolet's.

TD

[Alan Cooper]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Gywfq.48792$OO1....@newsfe02.iad:

...as did Heifetz with both Susskind and Reiner (although possibly his cuts are
different than Ricci's. whose recording I have not heard), and I agree with Tom
that they improve the work. If I'm not mistaken, even the so-called uncut
versions generally use the Auer edition (which includes cuts along with revisions
of the violin part) rather than the Urtext. See
http://rachelbartonpine.libsyn.com/index.php?post_year=2008&post_month=01
(episode 23).

AC

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Hmmm. Those 10 bars certainly are more difficult than they sound when played
by for example Yundi Lee - but there are far more difficult passages in the
cadenza. I never missed the 10 bars in Bolet's performances of the piece.
It's therefore difficult for me to agree with the observation that they add
the necessary (why?) metaphysical qualities to the work. What Prokofiev
would say about the in- or exclusion of these 10 bars is something beyond my
ability to know. However, I do remember Richter saying that Prokofiev was
one of the most un-principled human beings he had ever met. If that's true,
the in- or exclusion wouldn't be a matter of principle for Prokofiev.

I agree that the movement is poorer (= shorter) without those 10 bars,
although I'm not aware of their absence when Bolet performs the concerto.

I also agree that there are reasons to be glad when one's ears still work.
They certainly do more than one can expect of ears when they are hearing "a
transcendent quality, a majesty, an intensifying, elevating emotion" - and
all that in only 10 bars of a cadenza.

Henk

[Gerard]

Right.
I was always wondering: what am I hearing now?
I've never known that it was "a transcendent quality , a majesty, an
intensifying, elevating emotion".

Do you know where exactly (track number, minutes, seconds) it can be heard on
recordings by Toradze, Gutierrez, or Krainev? Or Kun Woo Paik, or Bronfman, or
Feltsman?

[JohnGavin]

On Sep 25, 8:24 am, Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote innews:Gywfq.48792$OO1....@newsfe02.iad:

>
> > pianomaven wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 4:43 pm, Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> (On the other hand, when I first
> >>> heard the Tchaikovsky played by Heifetz, I think without cuts
> >>> [Ricci's version, which I imprinted on], my feeling was more
> >>> like, "Aw, c'mon, get to the point already!)
>
> >> Right on.
>
> >> The full Tchaikovsky has FAR too much repetitive nonsense in
> >> it. Heifetz had the right idea. Just cut them out.
>

Tchaikovsky IS a composer capable of excess on occasion (i.e. PC #2).

Does anyone think that Prokofiev is guilty of excess? Nothing in the
PC#2 (uncut) strikes me as excessive.
The composer was gone just 1 year when Bolet made his recording. Did
the musical world recognize him as a master back then?
I wonder if he would have kept that cut later in his career.

[Kip Williams]

Russ (not Martha) wrote:

> Now I could dub the LP into a WAV file, burn it onto a CD, shlep the
> CD and my Sony portable down to a nearby university, pull the 2-piano
> score, listen to the extended solo in question (calling it a cadenza
> seems to have set off an unprofitable debate),and determine precisely
> which bars were omitted, but someone would have to send me a generous
> check.

I did it yesterday for free.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

herman wrote:

> However, it is a little puzzling if people say they actually prefer
> the bowlderized version, just beause they imprinted on it. 'I heard
> that one first' is not a very persuasive argument.

Who's been saying that?

I know I've used the word "imprint" in regard to Bolet's version, but
I've also said that finding other versions was a wonderful surprise.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

I'm also wondering if Bolet is the only one to cut those ten bars. I'd
have to check my LPs, but I thought I had bought this with Ashkenazy on
piano (and Previn conducting?), and that it was a while before I heard
the missing bars played by anybody else.

It's always possible, I suppose, that Ashkenazy played them and I didn't
notice. I will also entertain the possibility that I was mistaken about
having his version. I grow old, blah blah blah.


Kip W

[O]

In article <EuGfq.37213$oz6....@newsfe11.iad>, Kip Williams

You sent him a generous check for free?

-Owen

[SPAM- @xs4all.nl HvT]

Gerard wrote:
>
> Do you know where exactly (track number, minutes, seconds) it can be
> heard on recordings by Toradze, Gutierrez, or Krainev? Or Kun Woo
> Paik, or Bronfman, or Feltsman?

The poco meno mosso passages starts around 9:08 in Feltsman's version and
around 9:43 in Vinnitskaya's version (with score) on YouTube.

Henk

[Gerard]

Thanks!
It will get a listen here a.s.a.p.

[Dufus]

On Sep 25, 9:05 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

To both Kip and Gavin's points here, in his 1958 debut with Bernstein/
NYPO, Ashkenazy makes no cut , but in his recording with Previn it
seems he does ( if my ears are reliable, a fact of contention in
several posts here ) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcEwnimouwc

Berezovsky makes the case for not cutting : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJSiKQHDUQQ

Pity Prokofiev never commented or recorded , and that Bolet never
commented,especially since Bolet's may have been the first recording
as TD wonders.

In "Notebooks", Richter mentions the 2nd Concerto, but not why Richter
never recorded it, or ever played it (?). Richter notes Prokofiev
dedicated the work posthumously to his friend, the pianist Maximilian
Schmidthoff :

"There are few tragic works by Prokofiev,who was actually rather
genial and positive by nature, but these three pieces - the Second and
Fourth Sonatas and the Second Concerto - are certainly tragic.The last
two were in fact dedicated posthumously. Prokofiev and Schmidthoff
often corresponded, until one day Prokofiev received a letter from
Schmidthoff announcing: ' Seryozha,another bit of news.I've shot
myself through the head. Maximilian.' His body was found two months
later in a forest."

Yet, Richter also notes: " Sergey Prokofiev was an extremely
interesting person, but.....dangerous. He was capable of hurling you
against a wall.One day a pupil was playing his his Third Concerto,
accompanied by his teacher at a second piano, when the composer
suddenly got up and grabbed the teacher by the neck, shouting: '
Idiot ! You don't even know how to play, get out of the room!' To the
teacher ! .... He was violent. Completely different from Shostakovich,
who was for ever mumbling ' Sorry'."

Given the rewrites of the cadenza Charles mentioned here, beware cuts
during the composer's lifetime ?!

Dufus

[CharlesSmith]

On Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:06:43 PM UTC+1, Dufus wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:05 am, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To both Kip and Gavin's points here, in his 1958 debut with Bernstein/
> NYPO, Ashkenazy makes no cut , but in his recording with Previn it
> seems he does ( if my ears are reliable, a fact of contention in
> several posts here ) :
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcEwnimouwc
>

When we last went round this cadenza (not that long ago) laraine posted a link to the piano score. It's at:

http://tinyurl.com/65du3sz

I've listened to the Ashkenazy with the score. I can't vouch for every note, but there don't appear to be any missing chunks.

..........

>
> Yet, Richter also notes: " Sergey Prokofiev was an extremely
> interesting person, but.....dangerous. He was capable of hurling you
> against a wall.One day a pupil was playing his his Third Concerto,
> accompanied by his teacher at a second piano, when the composer
> suddenly got up and grabbed the teacher by the neck, shouting: '
> Idiot ! You don't even know how to play, get out of the room!' To the
> teacher ! .... He was violent. Completely different from Shostakovich,
> who was for ever mumbling ' Sorry'."
>

There's another story from Odessa 1927 (which I'm summarising from David Nice's book), when the 19-year-old David Oistrakh played the scherzo from the 1st violin concerto at a banquet in Prokofiev's honour, but was humiliated when the composer came forward to demonstrate how he ought to have played it.

Charles

[Kip Williams]

And worth every penny.

Kip W

[Kip Williams]

CharlesSmith wrote:
>> > To both Kip and Gavin's points here, in his 1958 debut with Bernstein/
>> > NYPO, Ashkenazy makes no cut , but in his recording with Previn it
>> > seems he does ( if my ears are reliable, a fact of contention in
>> > several posts here ) :
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcEwnimouwc
>> >
> When we last went round this cadenza (not that long ago) laraine posted a link to the piano score. It's at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/65du3sz
>
> I've listened to the Ashkenazy with the score. I can't vouch for every note, but there don't appear to be any missing chunks.

I just checked, and the cadenza seems complete in this one.

At this point, I think what probably happened is that I didn't listen to
the Ashkenazy recording very much, as it seemed kind of shallow, so I
probably never noticed that there was more to the cadenza. I did tape
the rest of the LP � the first concerto and the overture on Hebrew
themes � and since I already had Bolet in the second, I pretty much had
what I wanted.

Regulars in the group may have noticed I don't go in for comparing a lot
of versions in most cases � I'd rather expand the pool of available
compositions, for the most part.

Kip W

[Dufus]

On Sep 24, 2:20 pm, CharlesSmith <sigma.onl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Prokofiev invested enormous efferts in this 'cadenza'.\

From one of his letters , per the Prokofiev Foundation , about playing
his own 2nd Concerto:

"I am nervous and ask myself why. Vanity, of course. What if they
say that Prokofiev himself plays his own works badly? I try to
persuade myself not to look at things in that light: supposing he does
make mistakes, what does it really matter? The concerto is still the
concerto. This line of reasoning is of help to me and I come out to
play in a more or less calm frame of mind. But I do not manage to stay
calm during the most difficult parts: in the cadenza (specifically
where I mark colossale) and at the beginning of the third movement,
where the hands keep jumping over one another, I play badly. However,
the rest I play well and with enthusiasm. There is no doubt that the
first movement goes down well. Before the scherzo we take a little
break. No question that this concerto produces a far stronger
impression than the Third. We repeat the Scherzo pushing it a bit too
hard and smoothing over some of its articulated sharpness."

[Dufus]

On Sep 25, 12:06 pm, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CharlesSmith wrote:
> I just checked, and the cadenza seems complete in this one.
>

Both correct ; I jumped too far ahead in the YT.

And consistent with Gavin's point that performance practice may have
changed since early 50's ; seems most recordings/performances today
(?) of the Rachmaninoff 2nd Symphony and 3rd Piano Concerto observe no
cuts .

Dufus

[herman]

On 26 sep, 14:25, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> And consistent with Gavin's point that performance practice may have
> changed since early 50's ; seems most recordings/performances today
> (?) of the Rachmaninoff 2nd Symphony and 3rd Piano Concerto observe no
> cuts .
>
> Dufus

I believe I was the one who made the point that Prokofiev
interpretation has moved on since Bolet recording, particularly since

[Dufus]

On Sep 26, 10:50 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I believe I was the one who made the point that Prokofiev
> interpretation has moved on since Bolet recording, particularly since
> the end of the Cold War.

You both did, I forgot your earlier. 2 marks to each of you.

Dufus

[Kevin N]

On Sep 24, 9:20 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 6:40 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 5:27 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > I cannot see why he skipped these 10 bars. It certainly isn't the most
> > > difficult part of the cadenza. Perhaps he believed it to be the least
> > > captivating part (which it is, in a way).
>
> > I disagree .  Those 10 add a transcendent quality , a majesty, an
> > intensifying, elevating emotion, the work deserves/needs at that
> > point. Hardly, "aw,c'mon". What would Prokofiev say ; that those 10
> > were mere surplusage ? Perhaps more difficult than sounds ?
>
> > In any event, the movement/cadenza is poorer without those 10.
>
> > Glad to hear my ears still work.
>

> But your taste doesn't.
>
> TD

Too bad that neither work in your case.

A reasonable person would most likely have TD in his or her killfile,
but I really want to compare it with Henk's reply to Dufus. The
contrast really speaks for itself: on the one hand all you get is some
snide put-down, and on the other a really good read, chock full of
interesting information and personal observances. Many thanks to Henk
for sharing!

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Kevin N <boss...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:b0b0bdc6-7bea-4d06-8f4d-1bfac7daf415@
18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:

> Too bad that neither work in your case.
>
> A reasonable person would most likely have TD in his or her killfile, but
> I really want to compare it with Henk's reply to Dufus. The contrast
> really speaks for itself: on the one hand all you get is some snide put-
> down, and on the other a really good read, chock full of interesting
> information and personal observances. Many thanks to Henk for sharing!

Your observation is itself a good one, and I agree. It's people such as
Henk and Dufus (and many others, of course) who can make persuasive cases
for their opinions. A poster who just sasses and insults others (and I
admit that this used to be my method, before I decided I had to clean up my
act) cannot persuade others to his way of thinking, nor even give reason
why they should give it any consideration.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
"I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable
than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical
change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free
society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get
to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors." Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on "Meet the Press" 15 May 2011
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[herman]

On 26 sep, 21:55, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:

> (and I
> admit that this used to be my method, before I decided I had to clean up my
> act)

You could, theoretically, consider, dropping that ridiculously long
tagline, one of the top pollutions on this board.

[pianomaven]

On Sep 26, 12:39 pm, Kevin N <bossk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:20 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 6:40 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 5:27 pm, "HvT" <hvtuijl- SPAM- @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > I cannot see why he skipped these 10 bars. It certainly isn't the most
> > > > difficult part of the cadenza. Perhaps he believed it to be the least
> > > > captivating part (which it is, in a way).
>
> > > I disagree .  Those 10 add a transcendent quality , a majesty, an
> > > intensifying, elevating emotion, the work deserves/needs at that
> > > point. Hardly, "aw,c'mon". What would Prokofiev say ; that those 10
> > > were mere surplusage ? Perhaps more difficult than sounds ?
>
> > > In any event, the movement/cadenza is poorer without those 10.
>
> > > Glad to hear my ears still work.
>
> > But your taste doesn't.
>
> > TD
>
> Too bad that neither work in your case.

How could you possibly tell that.

Whereas, I can clearly tell that the poster's taste doesn't.

You are so full of cheap shots and bullshit, I am surprised you aren't
loaded into one of the shotguns around my house where they are killing
ducks right about now.

Hear that Tepper? Shooting ducks. For sport.

> A reasonable person would most likely have TD in his or her killfile,
> but I really want to compare it with Henk's reply to Dufus.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, or those who will
not hear.

Ostriches do what you do.

Perhaps you're reverting to some long-lost ancestor.

TD

[pianomaven]

This would give his posts less room on the page. Then they would be
reduced to the useless one-liners that usually spew from his pen.

TD

[boombox]

On Sep 25, 6:27 am, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But nobody, as far as I know, has captured the dark murky sinister
> quality of this piece in quite the way Bolet did in that rather badly
> recorded version for Remington some 60 years ago now. I am wondering,
> indeed, whether that was not the very first recording ever made of
> this concerto. WERM might take us up to 1953, perhaps. I am unusure of
> any others which were made prior to Bolet's.
>

I think the Zak/Sanderling is a few years older than Bolet/Johnson.

[pianomaven]

Really? Not sure I even know about this recording.

TD

[boombox]

Heard of it years ago and could never find it, but it has resurfaced
recently, on Melodiya (with Ravel G major and Prokofiev Sonata 4) and
on Praga (with Brahms PC2.) The Melodiya is listed as a 1953
performance, but the Praga says 1949-51 for the two pieces. That the
Praga claims to be a live recording with a different date than the
Melodiya, (which is almost certainly the same recording,) may strike
one as an all-too familiar deceit on Praga's part, but I do not know
where to get the dates verified.

[pianomaven]

I guess the question is when the recording was first issued, as well
as when it was recorded. The Bolet was an actual recording for
Remington. Probably allied to performances of the piece in Cincinnati
before the recording.

I also don't know the actual date of the Cherkassky recording of the
concerto.

Interesting to find this old performance by one of the legends of
Soviet piano-playing, however.

TD

[boombox]

On Sep 28, 7:25 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:49 pm, boombox <boom...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 12:00 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 9:44 am, boombox <boom...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think the Zak/Sanderling is a few years older thanBolet/Johnson.
>
> > > Really? Not sure I even know about this recording.
>
> > Heard of it years ago and could never find it, but it has resurfaced

> > recently, on Melodiya (with Ravel G major andProkofievSonata 4) and

> > on Praga (with Brahms PC2.)  The Melodiya is listed as a 1953
> > performance, but the Praga says 1949-51 for the two pieces.  That the
> > Praga claims to be a live recording with a different date than the
> > Melodiya, (which is almost certainly the same recording,) may strike
> > one as an all-too familiar deceit on Praga's part, but I do not know
> > where to get the dates verified.
>
> I guess the question is when the recording was first issued, as well

> as when it was recorded. TheBoletwas an actual recording for

> Remington. Probably allied to performances of the piece in Cincinnati
> before the recording.
>
> I also don't know the actual date of the Cherkassky recording of the
> concerto.
>
> Interesting to find this old performance by one of the legends of
> Soviet piano-playing, however.
>
> TD

OK, I finally got the Melodiya Zak/Sanderling in my hands. The date
given for the Proko PC 2 is 1959. The Sonata 4 on the same disk is
from 1953. I seriously doubt that the Praga is anything but the same
performance as the Melodiya, regardless of the date they list!

[pianomaven]

So, Bolet is likely the first recorded performance of this music that
we know of?

TD

[rkhalona]

> TD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know exactly when it was recorded, but the Boston Symphony
recording with Nicole Henriot-Schweitzer conducted by Munch may have
been the first (at least in North America). It is an early stereo
recording, so I guess it was made around 1956 or 1957. I transferred
this recording to CD and it was restored by my dear friend, the late
John Wilson, who released it on his private label.

RK

RK

[boombox]

Well, that makes it a year before Mitropoulos/Scarpini. Don't know of
any older.

[R. Edwards]

On Sep 28, 9:44 am, boombox <boom...@mindspring.com> wrote:

The copyright date on the back of the jacket for the Bolet/Johnson is
1953.

Ray

[rkhalona]

That would make the Bolet recording earlier than the Henriot-
Schweitzer/Munch.

RK

[rkhalona]

On Sep 25, 6:36 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 8:24 am, Alan Cooper <amcoo...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote innews:Gywfq.48792$OO1....@newsfe02.iad:
>
> > > pianomaven wrote:
> > >> On Sep 24, 4:43 pm, Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>> (On the other hand, when I first
> > >>> heard the Tchaikovsky played by Heifetz, I think without cuts
> > >>> [Ricci's version, which I imprinted on], my feeling was more
> > >>> like, "Aw, c'mon, get to the point already!)
>
> > >> Right on.
>
> > >> The full Tchaikovsky has FAR too much repetitive nonsense in
> > >> it. Heifetz had the right idea. Just cut them out.
>
> Tchaikovsky IS a composer capable of excess on occasion (i.e. PC #2).
>
> Does anyone think that Prokofiev is guilty of excess?  Nothing in the
> PC#2 (uncut) strikes me as excessive.
> The composer was gone just 1 year when Bolet made his recording.  Did
> the musical world recognize him as a master back then?
> I wonder if he would have kept that cut later in his career.

The only piece by Prokofiev where I find him (just a bit) guilty of
excess is his March in B-flat, Op. 99 for Military Band. I love it!
There have been several orchestral arrangements (e.g., Abbado has a
good recording), but none have that flavor that lets you know that
only Prokofiev could be its author as in the original band
arrangement.
Rozhdestvensky has a wonderful recording on Chandos (Stockholm concert
band). That disc is made the more special because it includes
two equally riotous marches by Shostakovich and by Khachaturian that
were composed for a contest to select a march for the Soviet Police.
In the meantime, enjoy the Prokofiev

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_rlKDyzFpo

RK

[pianomaven]

Ah. He was a pirate as well as incompetent?

TD

[pianomaven]

It is dangerous to mix "recordings" with live performances which
happen to have been recorded and are later released on some label
somewhere.

If we just stick to recordings, Bolet was first, NH-S second.

TD

[R. Edwards]

It appears that Cherkassky (HMV ALP 1349 - Rec: 1954 / released 1955)
was probably second.
N. Henriot's recording (LM 2197) wasn't listed in the Schwann catalog
until 1958.

Ray